Fix in-intent inside on-statements #22760
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Ben Harshbarger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ben Harshbarger <[email protected]>
vasslitvinov
approved these changes
Jul 19, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes a bug where
in-intents were not being implemented for calls inside of on-statements. The functioncheckAnotherFunctionsFormalwas created to fix a particular issue with follower-related code, where it was important to ignore in-intents (see #13300). The function checked whether the argument to the call was defined in the same function as the call itself, and if it wasn't, would tell resolution to not implementinintent copies for that argument. This would inherently apply to all nested functions, which include our representation of on-statements at this stage of the compiler. The solution is to check whether the nested function is a follower function, and if not, skip the rest of the logic.The .future test
multilocale/bharshbarg/onStmtInIntent.chplwas introduced in #22747 and demonstrates the bug. This PR retires that .future.Testing: